Part C | 29
650 Part C Coastal Design
along the shoreline to areas of need. Sand delivered in
this manner could also act as long-term feeder beaches
to the adjacent shorelines.
Public Perception
The public often perceives beach nourishment as benefitting only those adjacent to the beaches although the
benefits may extend well inland and accrue to both
state and federal coffers (see the excellent articles by
Houston [29.24, 25]). However, most, if not all, projects
that receive partial public funding require public access
and parking, restroom facilities, and must meet other
public benefit criteria. Often, the projects play a substantial role in protecting emergency evacuation routes
and provide storm protection to valuable real estate that
generates significant tax revenue.
29.9 Nomenclature
˛ b Azimuth of the direction from which the breaking
waves originate.
B
Berm height
d
Sediment grain diameter
G
Longshore diffusivity
g
Gravitational acceleration
h Depth of closure, seaward limit of nourishment
sand distribution
H b Breaking wave height (root-mean-square)
K
Sediment transport coefficient
Ä
Breaker index, or ratio between breaking wave
height and breaking depth
`
Project length
M.t/ Proportion of beach nourishment sediment remaining at time t
p
Porosity
Sorting, or range, of sediment sizes
S
Specific gravity
t
Time after placement
Â
Azimuth of the outward normal from the unaffected shoreline
v
Sediment volume density placed per unit length
of beach
x
Longshore distance
x o Alongshore location of beach nourishment project
center
y Equilibrated additional dry beach width
y
Cross-shore distance
Y
Beach nourishment project width
References
29.1
P. Bruun: Sea level rise as a cause of shore erosion, J. Waterw. Harb. Coast. Eng. Div. 88(1), 117–130
(1962)
29.2
R.G. Dean: Beach Nourishment: Theory and Practice
(World Scientific, Singapore 2002) p. 396
29.3
T.J. Campbell, M.G. Jenkins: Design considerations
for hot spot erosion areas on beach nourishment
projects, Proc. 28th Int. Conf. Coast. Eng. (2002)
pp. 3642–3648
29.4
R.G. Dean: Terminal structures at ends of littoral
systems, J. Coast. Res. SI18, 195–210 (1993)
29.5
R.G. Dean, R. Chen, A.E. Browder: Full scale monitoring study of a submerged breakwater, Palm
Beach, Florida, USA, Coast. Eng. 29, 291–315 (1997)
29.6
R. Pelnard–Considère, Essai de théorie de
l’evolution des formes de rivage en plages de
sable et de galets, 4th Journees de l’hydraulique,
Les Energies de la Mer II(1), 289–298 (1956)
29.7
H. Hanson, M. Larson: Comparison of analytical
and numerical solutions of the one-line model of
shoreline change, Proc. Coast. Sediments (ASCE, Reston 1987) pp. 500–514
29.8
R.G. Dean, R.A. Dalrymple: Coastal Processes with
Engineering Applications (Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge 2002) p. 475
29.9
B. Le Mehaute, A. Brebner: An Introduction to
Coastal Morphology and Littoral Processes, Civil
Engineering Department Report 14 (Queen’s University, Canada 1961)
29.10 H. Hanson, N.C. Kraus: GENESIS: Generalized Model
for Simulating Shoreline Change: Report 1, Technical Report CERC 89-19 (US Army Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center,
Vicksburg 1989)
29.11 H. Hanson: Genesis: A generalized shoreline
change numerical model, J. Coast. Res. 5(1), 1–27
(1989)
29.12 A.J. Combe, C.W. Soileau: Behavior of man-made
beach and dune, Grand Isle, Louisiana, Proc.
Coast. Sediments (ASCE, Reston 1987) pp. 1232–
1242
29.13 L. Benedet, J.H. List: Evaluation of the physical process controlling beach changes adjacent to
nearshore dredge pts, Coast. Eng. 55, 1221–1236
(2008)
29.14 S.L. Douglass: Estimating landward migration of
nearshore, constructed, sand mounds, J. Waterw. Port Coast, Ocean Eng. 121(5), 247–250
(1995)
29.15 S.L. Douglass: Nearshore placement of sand, Proc.,
25th Int. Conf. Coast. Eng. (1996) pp. 3708–3721,
Chapter 286
29.16 E. Hands, M.C. Allison: Mound migration in deeper
water and methods of categorizing active and sta-
650 Part C Coastal Design
along the shoreline to areas of need. Sand delivered in
this manner could also act as long-term feeder beaches
to the adjacent shorelines.
Public Perception
The public often perceives beach nourishment as benefitting only those adjacent to the beaches although the
benefits may extend well inland and accrue to both
state and federal coffers (see the excellent articles by
Houston [29.24, 25]). However, most, if not all, projects
that receive partial public funding require public access
and parking, restroom facilities, and must meet other
public benefit criteria. Often, the projects play a substantial role in protecting emergency evacuation routes
and provide storm protection to valuable real estate that
generates significant tax revenue.
29.9 Nomenclature
˛ b Azimuth of the direction from which the breaking
waves originate.
B
Berm height
d
Sediment grain diameter
G
Longshore diffusivity
g
Gravitational acceleration
h Depth of closure, seaward limit of nourishment
sand distribution
H b Breaking wave height (root-mean-square)
K
Sediment transport coefficient
Ä
Breaker index, or ratio between breaking wave
height and breaking depth
`
Project length
M.t/ Proportion of beach nourishment sediment remaining at time t
p
Porosity
Sorting, or range, of sediment sizes
S
Specific gravity
t
Time after placement
Â
Azimuth of the outward normal from the unaffected shoreline
v
Sediment volume density placed per unit length
of beach
x
Longshore distance
x o Alongshore location of beach nourishment project
center
y Equilibrated additional dry beach width
y
Cross-shore distance
Y
Beach nourishment project width
References
29.1
P. Bruun: Sea level rise as a cause of shore erosion, J. Waterw. Harb. Coast. Eng. Div. 88(1), 117–130
(1962)
29.2
R.G. Dean: Beach Nourishment: Theory and Practice
(World Scientific, Singapore 2002) p. 396
29.3
T.J. Campbell, M.G. Jenkins: Design considerations
for hot spot erosion areas on beach nourishment
projects, Proc. 28th Int. Conf. Coast. Eng. (2002)
pp. 3642–3648
29.4
R.G. Dean: Terminal structures at ends of littoral
systems, J. Coast. Res. SI18, 195–210 (1993)
29.5
R.G. Dean, R. Chen, A.E. Browder: Full scale monitoring study of a submerged breakwater, Palm
Beach, Florida, USA, Coast. Eng. 29, 291–315 (1997)
29.6
R. Pelnard–Considère, Essai de théorie de
l’evolution des formes de rivage en plages de
sable et de galets, 4th Journees de l’hydraulique,
Les Energies de la Mer II(1), 289–298 (1956)
29.7
H. Hanson, M. Larson: Comparison of analytical
and numerical solutions of the one-line model of
shoreline change, Proc. Coast. Sediments (ASCE, Reston 1987) pp. 500–514
29.8
R.G. Dean, R.A. Dalrymple: Coastal Processes with
Engineering Applications (Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge 2002) p. 475
29.9
B. Le Mehaute, A. Brebner: An Introduction to
Coastal Morphology and Littoral Processes, Civil
Engineering Department Report 14 (Queen’s University, Canada 1961)
29.10 H. Hanson, N.C. Kraus: GENESIS: Generalized Model
for Simulating Shoreline Change: Report 1, Technical Report CERC 89-19 (US Army Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center,
Vicksburg 1989)
29.11 H. Hanson: Genesis: A generalized shoreline
change numerical model, J. Coast. Res. 5(1), 1–27
(1989)
29.12 A.J. Combe, C.W. Soileau: Behavior of man-made
beach and dune, Grand Isle, Louisiana, Proc.
Coast. Sediments (ASCE, Reston 1987) pp. 1232–
1242
29.13 L. Benedet, J.H. List: Evaluation of the physical process controlling beach changes adjacent to
nearshore dredge pts, Coast. Eng. 55, 1221–1236
(2008)
29.14 S.L. Douglass: Estimating landward migration of
nearshore, constructed, sand mounds, J. Waterw. Port Coast, Ocean Eng. 121(5), 247–250
(1995)
29.15 S.L. Douglass: Nearshore placement of sand, Proc.,
25th Int. Conf. Coast. Eng. (1996) pp. 3708–3721,
Chapter 286
29.16 E. Hands, M.C. Allison: Mound migration in deeper
water and methods of categorizing active and sta-